5 ms·

> it also does make the web faster this is true > That is why AMP has been successful This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget ab

> it also does make the web faster this is true > That is why AMP has been successful This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day

thereisnospork 7y ago
>> That is why AMP has been successful >This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing.
- hk__2 7y ago
  > Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing. Yes. It should give ranking incentive based on actual speed, not AMP support.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Google already incorporates site speed into their rankings, separate from AMP. However, if you want to get into Google's mobile carousel above the normal search results, you have to serve AMP pages and let Google cache them.
- progval 7y ago
  Except that it's now giving a huge boost to websites that use a specific technology to be fast; instead of just boosting all fast websites like it used to. Sites can be fast even if they don't use AMP.
  - girvo 7y ago
    Heck, sites can be faster if they don't use AMP. Sure, most sites aren't, but it's certainly doable. AMP, aside from Google caching your site on the SRP, doesn't really do anything crazy when it comes to site performance.
- Udik 7y ago
  > Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing. Really? I thought Google's purpose was to find information in the web, not to give me fast links. If I am looking for an article, I want that article, not a different but faster one. If I am looking for a piece of information, I want the best fit, not the second or third best but faster fit.
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    Information delivered slowly is less useful than information delivered quickly[1]. If there are 5 takes on an AP-wire article I want google to give me a fast site over a bloated slow site. The finer points of how they get to a fast site don't particularly matter to me. [1] One of the nicer features of HN is that it is snappy and responsive - ime the polar opposite of many non-AMP news sites.
    - AlexandrB 7y ago
      > If there are 5 takes on an AP-wire article I want google to give me a fast site over a bloated slow site. I'd want Google to give me the accurate, well-researched site. When the difference between "fast" and "slow" is a matter of seconds (or often milliseconds), I'm not sure why better information delivered a few seconds later should be ranked lower.
      - thereisnospork 7y ago
        Slower sites should be ranked lower for the same reason a dictionary that isn't alphabetized is less useful than one that is and both are less useful than dictionary.com. I'd rather have Webster than Oxford if Oxford will take twice as long and I'd rather not have urbandictionary.com over either -- hence a weighting. Moreover that even if google could give me the canonical result[0] to my query its likely I will need to visit and view several sites to get the information I am searching for - information I will obtain faster when the sites are faster. [0]Any ranking will be probabilistic and in all likelihood for common topics there will be multiple candidates within the expected error - why is it so great a sin to order them by accessibility?
beaner 7y ago
But speed results in better ranking, and that's what amp provides.
- SirHound 7y ago
  No, AMP provides space on a top carousel of results.
  - beaner 7y ago
    It may also do that, sure. But you're telling me it does not provide speed improvements?
qbaqbaqba 7y ago
> it also does make the web faster No, it is not. Optimized plain old webpages are faster. If Google wants to promote faster pages then amp should not be promoted in the search results. It is about capturing traffic, injecting tracking and ads.

> it also does make the web faster this is true > That is why AMP has been successful This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day

thereisnospork 7y ago

>> That is why AMP has been successful >This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing.

hk__2 7y ago
> Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing. Yes. It should give ranking incentive based on actual speed, not AMP support.
snowwrestler 7y ago
Google already incorporates site speed into their rankings, separate from AMP. However, if you want to get into Google's mobile carousel above the normal search results, you have to serve AMP pages and let Google cache them.
progval 7y ago
Except that it's now giving a huge boost to websites that use a specific technology to be fast; instead of just boosting all fast websites like it used to. Sites can be fast even if they don't use AMP.
- girvo 7y ago
  Heck, sites can be faster if they don't use AMP. Sure, most sites aren't, but it's certainly doable. AMP, aside from Google caching your site on the SRP, doesn't really do anything crazy when it comes to site performance.
Udik 7y ago
> Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing. Really? I thought Google's purpose was to find information in the web, not to give me fast links. If I am looking for an article, I want that article, not a different but faster one. If I am looking for a piece of information, I want the best fit, not the second or third best but faster fit.
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  Information delivered slowly is less useful than information delivered quickly[1]. If there are 5 takes on an AP-wire article I want google to give me a fast site over a bloated slow site. The finer points of how they get to a fast site don't particularly matter to me. [1] One of the nicer features of HN is that it is snappy and responsive - ime the polar opposite of many non-AMP news sites.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    > If there are 5 takes on an AP-wire article I want google to give me a fast site over a bloated slow site. I'd want Google to give me the accurate, well-researched site. When the difference between "fast" and "slow" is a matter of seconds (or often milliseconds), I'm not sure why better information delivered a few seconds later should be ranked lower.
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      Slower sites should be ranked lower for the same reason a dictionary that isn't alphabetized is less useful than one that is and both are less useful than dictionary.com. I'd rather have Webster than Oxford if Oxford will take twice as long and I'd rather not have urbandictionary.com over either -- hence a weighting. Moreover that even if google could give me the canonical result[0] to my query its likely I will need to visit and view several sites to get the information I am searching for - information I will obtain faster when the sites are faster. [0]Any ranking will be probabilistic and in all likelihood for common topics there will be multiple candidates within the expected error - why is it so great a sin to order them by accessibility?

beaner 7y ago

But speed results in better ranking, and that's what amp provides.

SirHound 7y ago
No, AMP provides space on a top carousel of results.
- beaner 7y ago
  It may also do that, sure. But you're telling me it does not provide speed improvements?

qbaqbaqba 7y ago

> it also does make the web faster No, it is not. Optimized plain old webpages are faster. If Google wants to promote faster pages then amp should not be promoted in the search results. It is about capturing traffic, injecting tracking and ads.